- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jukka.k.korpela@kolumbus.fi>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 20:54:25 +0300
- To: public-html@w3.org
2014-09-16 16:47, Daniel Glazman wrote: > > It may sound a little bit disruptive but I think the way the CSS > Working Group works and operates is worth looking at... > > - we don't have one main spec of 1000 pages, we have modules > Not disruptive at all, but do you really have modules? In traditional programming, a “module” is a unit with well-defined relations to other units. CSS “modules” are just parts or aspects of CSS. They may overlap, they may be ignorant of each other, and they may conflict with each other. In consequence, if you ask what is CSS, e.g. as approved by the W3C CSS Validator, the answer is something like “oh well, CSS 2.1 plus those newer “CSS 3” or “CSS 4” specs that have REC or CR status, well I’m not sure about LC, and of course some parts of specs with lower maturity are, you see, CSS”. Maybe this is the best we can have, and maybe it is the way to go. But speaking of “modules”, I think you should define how they are defined and how their conflicts are to be resolved. -- Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 17:54:50 UTC